MARKETING

MANAGEMENT

JOURNAL OF

Managing destination brands: establishing a theoretical foundation

Graham Hankinson, London Metropolitan University Business School, UK*
Abstract There is general agreement in the literature that the marketing of
places as brands requires a special type of marketing (Ashworth 1993, p. 648). But while the problems inherent in place marketing are well documented (see for example Karavatzis and Ashworth 2005) very little attention has been given to the development of a theory of destination branding which can be used to guide destination brand managers and form the basis of future research. The conclusions from a review of the literature are tested against the experiences of practitioners (Churchill 1979) by means of 25 depth interviews with Senior Managers in 20 Destination Marketing Organisations. Five critical antecedents of successful destination branding are identified: stakeholder partnerships, brand leadership, departmental coordination, brand communications and brand culture. Two key mediating factors are also identified: brand reality and brand architecture. The managerial implications of these findings are discussed. Keywords Destination branding, Corporate branding, Services branding, Qualitative investigation, Theory development

INTRODUCTION
The practice of branding places as destinations - places to visit - is now a wellestablished aspect of public administration. Since the 1970s, when managerial forms of governance by public administrators began to develop (Ashworth and Voogt 1994; Ward 1998), the application of marketing techniques formerly associated with the private sector has continued to expand as competition for a share of the growing
*Correspondence details and a biography for the author are located at the end of the article. JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT, 2009, Vol. 25, No. 1-2, pp. 97-115
ISSN0267-257X print /ISSN1472-1376 online Westburn Publishers Ltd. doi: 10.1362/026725709X410052

98

JMM

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 25

tourism market has intensified (Kotler et al. 1999). However, the transfer of private sector practice to what is predominantly a public sector-led activity has made this application problematic. The distinctive nature of the destination product has been well documented - for useful reviews see Ashworth and Voogt (1990); Hankinson (2001) and Warnaby et al. (2002). The place product is a unique combination of buildings, facilities and venues which represent production by a multiplicity of autonomous services businesses, both public and private. As a result of this complex product offer, a place has to be marketed through partnerships, both formal and informal, between the public and private sector organisations involved in the place product delivery (Warnaby et al. 2002). This multi-faceted product is consumed simultaneously by several market segments, each consumer assembling their own unique product from the services on offer. Place marketers therefore, have less control over the brand experience than marketers of mainstream brands. Despite these problems, there is very little to be found in the literature as regards appropriate managerial solutions. The existing marketing literature has so far focused predominantly on case studies of specific destination branding programmes (see for example Hall 1999; Crockett and Wood 1999) while the tourism literature has focused largely on the destination image (Hankinson 2004). As a result, a special theory of destination branding has remained missing. The development of such a theory would not only help the determination and evaluation of managerial practice but also provide the basis for future research. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to lay the foundations for establishing a theory of destination branding. Following Churchill (1979), the paper begins with a review of the literature. The paper continues by describing the findings from semi-structured interviews with senior managers in 20 UK Destination Marketing Organisations (DMOs) with strategic responsibility for destination brand development. The views of the senior managers are then compared and synthesised with the managerial issues emerging from the literature. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications for a theory of destination brand management.

THE LITERATURE
There is a widely held view that the marketing of places requires a special type of marketing (Ashworth 1993, p. 648) and that the branding of places as destinations requires more complex managerial activities than product brands (Karavatsis and Ashworth 2005). Therefore, the literature review focused particularly, although not exclusively, on other categories of branding which appeared to have closer similarity to destination brands such as corporate branding and services branding. Recent literature with regard to corporate brands in particular, suggests that they have several characteristics that align them with destination brands and that managing destination brands might therefore be much like managing corporate brands. (Hankinson 2006; Karavatzis 2004; Trueman et al. 2004; Rainisto 2003). Firstly there is a requirement to manage interactions with multiple stakeholders with potentially conflicting objectives (Knox and Bickerton 2003; Trueman et al. 2004). Secondly, both communicate with stakeholders through a variety of contact points (Hankinson 2001; Ind 1997). Thirdly, both play a strong over-arching role, adding value through endorsement across a variety of business activities (Keller 2000; Hankinson 2001). Fourthly, both are required to be the focal point for several consumer segments simultaneously

Hankinson Managing destination brands

99

(Kotler et al. 1999). A further characteristic of the destination product is that it consists of a bundle of services (Hankinson 2004); and it was for this reason that literature from the services branding domain was also reviewed. The objective of the literature review was to identify and categorise aspect of managerial practice which might be regarded as critical antecedents in the context of destination branding. Five categories emerged: (1) brand culture, (2) brand leadership, (3) departmental coordination, (4) brand communications, (5) stakeholder partnerships. Brand culture It is frequently pointed out, particularly in the context of corporate and services brands, that employees, through their interaction with customers, play a crucial role in bridging the gap between the envisioned brand values and those perceived by external stakeholders (Urde 1994; de Chernatony and Segal-Horn 2001, Balmer and Soenen 1999). It is this concern with values that brings branding practice into direct contact with organisational culture (Hatch and Schulz 2003, p. 1047). The culture of an organisation its values, beliefs and basic assumptions - manifests itself in the ways employees feel about the organisation and forms the environment in which brand values must be developed (de Chernatony and Segal-Horn 2001). Hatch and Schulz (2003) suggest that successful brands are those which establish a positive link between the desired values (as embodied in the brand vision), corporate culture and brand image. The job of management is then to bring corporate culture into line with the values embedded in the brand vision so that they become part of the customers image and experience of the brand. However, as (Schein 1992) points out, the desired values may not be the values-in-use the practiced values at work; therefore the starting point for building the brand must be an accurate assessment of the extant organisational culture. This must be followed by strategies designed to develop employees psychological commitment to the brand (Burmann and Zeplin 2005). Developing brand commitment however, is not an easy task. According to Burmann and Zeplin (2005), building this commitment requires the integration of three sets of managerial activities: brand centred human resource (HR) activities, brand leadership and brand communications. As the theoretical bases of brand leadership and brand communications are explained subsequently, only HR will be dealt with here. Brand-centred HR activities should ensure firstly, that recruitment and promotion is based upon a close fit between personal identity and brand identity. This means recruiting and promoting employees with similar values to the brands ( Ind 1998; de Chernatony and Segal-Horn 2001). Secondly, brand-centred HR activities ensure the provision of brand training for new employees and the incorporation of brand identity as part of executive development programmes. Similar activities are also proposed by Simoes and Dibb (2001). The successful development of employees commitment to the organisations brand is important because of its link to the development of appropriate brand behaviour. This commitment is seen as a key driver of what Burmann and Zeplin (2005) refer to as brand citizenship behaviour - individual, voluntary behaviour which enhances the performance of the brand, going beyond role expectations yet unrecognised by the reward system. Research by Burmann and Zeplin ( 2005) further suggests that this consists of seven dimensions: helping behaviour, brand consideration, brand enthusiasm, sportsmanship, brand endorsement, self development and brand advancement. The successful linking

100

JMM

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 25

of cultural change with brand commitment and brand behaviours is necessary if customers are to experience the brand in a way consistent with its brand values (Mitchell 2002). Brand leadership As was noted in the discussion on corporate culture, brand leadership is essential to the development of brand commitment (Burmann and Zeplin 2005). The need for leadership as a key aspect of brand management can be traced back to the ownerentrepreneurs who championed the development and promotion of consumer goods brands towards the end of the 1800s. As these companies grew however, this role moved down the hierarchy to brand managers who became the new brand champions with overall responsibility for the marketing mix (Low and Fullerton 1994). Over time this role became diluted as brand management responsibility moved to less senior levels (Hankinson and Cowking 1997). However, a growing awareness of the strategic importance of brands during the 1990s led to widespread recognition that the responsibility for the management of brands should move to more senior levels (George et. al. 1994; Urde 1999). This challenge to the traditional brand management model, based as it was on consumer goods marketing, has been particularly apparent in the corporate and services branding literatures. Knox and Bickerton (2003) for example, argue that the role of corporate brand management is too important to be delegated to a marketing department and that it should be the responsibility of a senior corporate brand management team. In the context of corporate services brands, MacDonald et al. (2001) suggest that organisations require pan-company coordination at a senior level in order to ensure a consistent execution of the brand by all members of the organisation. Recognition of the need for brand management to return to the highest levels in the organisation has been accompanied by a call for CEOs to once again take on the role of brand champion, particularly in the context of the development of the internal brand (Ind 1997; Burmann and Zeplin 2005). This means giving a clear sense of vision - what the organisation aspires to be in the future (Macrae and Uncles 1997), aligning vision with culture and image through organisational restructuring (Hatch and Schulz, 2003) and fostering an organisation-wide commitment to the brand (Simoes and Dibb 2001). Vallaster and de Chernatony (2006) suggest that, building the internal brand requires leadership to establish corporate structures which convey coherent and consistent brand messages to staff. In particular, they postulate that successful leaders (1) act as integrators between the elements of corporate identity structures (corporate culture, corporate design, corporate behaviour and corporate communications), (2) act as mediators between corporate branding structures and individuals, and (3) facilitate employee brand commitment by acting as role models (Burmann and Zeplin 2005; Vallaster and de Chernatony 2006). It has also been suggested that the arrival of a new CEO may be an opportune moment for internal rebranding (Mitchell 2002). In this context, research into transformational leadership suggests that new leaders should be both charismatic and inspirational (Bass 1990; Burmann and Zeplin 2005). Brand communications Traditionally, brands have focused on external communication to an identified target consumer market. More recently however, with the development of corporate branding, the need to communicate with a wider range of stakeholders - investors,

Hankinson Managing destination brands

101

suppliers and other business partners, regulators, special interest groups and local communities has been widely recognised (Hatch and Schulz 2003). The principal vehicles behind external communication continue to be corporate advertising and public relations activities (Greyser, Balmer and Urde 2006). However, the widening stakeholder audience has led to an associated widening in communication channels and contact points (Ind 1997; Goodman 2006). Thus, in addition to conventional external marketing communications, corporate brands make contact with stakeholders through, for example, shareholder meetings and annual reports, distributor training events and manuals. Also, corporate branding interfaces with external stakeholders in a wider variety of contexts including social responsibility, compliance and corporate governance. Corporate branding as opposed to product branding, it is argued, is thus both multi-dimensional and multi-disciplinary (Ind 1997). The overall aim of corporate brand communications across the broad array of stakeholders targeted is to build trust through consistency of execution (Goodman 2006). Evidence suggests also that consistency between brand communications and the brand statements underpinning the brand identity should be measured and monitored regularly and that it is helpful in this regard to distinguish between formal and informal communications. Whilst the consistency of informal communications (for example, email and meetings) is difficult to monitor as a result of their quantity and variety, formal brand communications are more amenable to analysis. With the development of the concept of the internal brand, corporate brand communications are now directed internally as well as externally. The ability of all employees, not just marketing departments, to understand and internalise the values embodied in the brand identity is necessary if this is to be transmitted correctly to external stakeholders (Knox and Bickerton 2003). Understanding the brand identity requires a clear definition of what to communicate and a presentation which will appeal to all levels in the organisation. Although effective external branding relies on rapid understanding effected through simple, memorable messages, the internal verbalisation of the brand identity has to reflect accurately the full complexity of that brand identity (Burmann and Zeplin 2005). This is particularly important if the communication is to act as a blueprint for employee behaviour, for example, answering the telephone and supporting services with user-friendly IT (cf. Hankinson, P 2004). . There is however, disagreement in the literature about how best to communicate the brand internally. Thus, Aaker and Joachinstaler (2000) discuss the use of a variety of communication forms including talks, handbooks and videos while others regard this approach as too long and difficult to internalise, preferring short, to-the-point brand statements which are memorable and capture the irrefutable essence or spirit of the brand positioning (Keller 1999). Whatever approach is taken however, it must above all motivate employees. To this end, Burmann and Zeplin (2005) suggest that employees should be involved in the generation of specific brand guidelines and targets. Leoncini (2002) in contrast suggests that, rather than engaging in a lengthy consensus-building process, the writing of brand identity statements should be driven by a group which includes the CEO, any founders who are still with the organisation and a few key employees. The role of the CEO, in the process of branding internally and externally, is widely acknowledged (for example, Vallaster and de Chernatony, 2006 Burmann and Zeplin 2005; Mitchell 2002; Aaker and Joachimstaler 2000). Examples from the practitioner world such as the role played by Richard Branson at Virgin support this view. However, there is a also a danger that the link between the brand identity and the CEO can lead to strategic disorientation after a handover to a successor as happened at EasyJet after the departure of Stelios Haji-Ionnou.

102

JMM

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 25

Departmental coordination The literature on departmental coordination is relatively limited in the context of branding. Nevertheless, it is firmly rooted in marketing theory: the major share of this literature is associated with marketing orientation, a concept at the heart of the marketing discipline. Kohli and Jaworski (1990) include interdepartmental dynamics as one of three organisational antecedents of marketing orientation which they define as: the organisationwide generation, dissemination and responsiveness to market intelligence (Kohli and Jaworski 1990:117). This view is supported by several research studies (Naver and Slater 1990; Jaworski et al. 1993; Deng and Dart 1994; Gray et al. 1998). In the context of branding however, Urde (1999) sees the concept of marketing orientation as problematic, focusing the organisation as it does, externally on customers and competition. In contrast branding he argues acts as an interaction between the organisation and its customers looking both inward and outward. Firms therefore, need to organise their processes around the creation, development and protection of their brand identity, a management approach which Urde (1999, p. 117) defines as brand orientation. This is supported by Tilley (1999) who suggests the need for a fundamental review all marketing and non-marketing departmental procedures and processes, and their re-orientation in support of a brands core values. Knox and Bickerton (2003) similarly highlight the importance of ensuring that relevant business processes support the corporate brand through the delivery of customer value. In particular, finance and R&D departments can have a significant influence on the performance of a brand through the facilitation of brand funding and the creation of new products respectively (Macrae and Uncles 1997) This approach is necessary because, as Rubenstein (1996) reports, many departments will say that their activities have a minimal or non-existent effect on the brand, when in fact their behaviour may be fundamental (Rubinstein 1996, p. 273). Arguments such as these extend the concept of departmental dynamics beyond the need for departments to coordinate their responses to market intelligence to include the coordination of inter-departmental processes and behaviours around the creation, development and protection of the brand. Stakeholder partnerships The importance of building strong relationships not only with customers, but also with suppliers, the community, shareholders, and even competitors in order to deliver long term economic, social and environmental value is at the heart of contemporary marketing (Zineldin 2004; Murphy et al. 2005). This fundamental assumption has manifest itself in the significant growth in cooperative partnerships both in and across the private and public sectors and has fuelled the extensive literature on corporate collaborations which has emerged over the last 20 years. Organisations with insufficient resources to respond quickly to the changing market environment have been able to effect a swifter and more effective response through co-operative partnerships and alliances (Barwise and Robertson 1992). Such partnerships cover a wide variety of practices and relationships (McQuaid 2002). In their simplest form they may involve a group of organisations from the same industry forming a service alliance as a separate entity which they control, in order to meet a mutual need, for example training. Alternatively, they may involve a group of interdependent organisations, say from within a value chain, forming an alliance in order to create value, both for themselves and for their end-users (Kanter 1989). Most of the literature in this area has so far, been almost entirely focused on

Hankinson Managing destination brands

103

partnerships between single, non-competing organisations and their stakeholders. However, brand-owning organisations are increasingly managing their brands in partnership with other brand-owning organisations (Leitch and Richardson 2003). Consequently, it is argued that single organisation-centred theory is inadequate (Kelly 1998). Stakeholder partnerships are becoming multidimensional - based upon relationships between compatible organisations in terms of their goal, their power, the compatibility of their respective brands and the relative strategies pursued by each member (Leitch and Richardson 2003). Such compatibility is vital to the development of trust, cooperation and commitment (Sherman 1992; Zineldin 2004). Partnerships involving the sharing of resources, including finance, knowledge and competencies, also require a formal framework which embraces clearly defined organisational arrangements and good communications (Kanter 1989; Berg and Braun 1999; Zineldin 2004). Such frameworks also need to be flexible over the long term: able to adapt to changes in management personnel, levels of commitment and strategic drift (Kanter 1989; Huxham and Vangen 2000; Zinedin 2004).

THE RESEARCH ISSUES AND METHODOLOGY

In order to confirm the relevance of the five antecedents identified in the literature review, it was necessary to establish their coherence with the reality of destination brand management (Zaltman 1973). As the aim of this study was to contribute to the development of theory, the use of a qualitative methodological approach was appropriate (Deshpande 1982). Therefore, in line with Churchill (1979) and following similar studies (see for example Chernatony and DallOlmo Riley 1998), the conclusions from the literature review were supplemented with an experience survey a judgmental sample of people who can provide ideas and insights into the phenomenon under study. In order to access a high level of knowledge and experience of the problems of destination branding, it was decided to conduct field interviews with a sample of senior DMO managers - CEOs, Marketing Directors and Directors of Tourism (Jankowicz 2000). To achieve a wide variety of ideas and insights, the judgemental sample was drawn from within the four different categories of DMO operating in the UK: National Governmental Agencies (NGAs) - responsible for country level promotion; Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) - responsible for overall regional economic strategy; Tourist Boards (TBs) - responsible for tourism development; and Local Government Authorities (LGAs) - who work in partnership with RDAs and TBs. Letters were sent to CEOs asking them, or an appropriate member of their senior management team, to participate in the study. This was followed up by a telephone call to arrange an interview. In some organisations it was possible to interview more than one senior manager which resulted in a total sample of 25 managers from 20 DMOs. Details by type of DMO are set out in Table 1.
TABLE 1 Details of DMOs interviewed
Type of DMO Tourist Boards Local Government Authorities Regional Development Agencies National Tourism Agencies Total City 6 8 14 Regional 2 2 4 National Total 8 8 2 2 20

2 2

104

JMM

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 25

In view of the nature of the research, a semi-structured interview design was adopted (Miles and Huberman 1994). This form of interview allows the interviewee to respond freely within their own frame of reference. Interviewees were encouraged to say as much as they could in answer to each question; they were therefore allowed to proceed without interruption from the interviewer except for the purposes of clarification and probing. The topic guide used to steer the interview included the following areas for discussion: (1) the managerial and organisational factors critical to successful destination branding, (2) the extent to which these factors were present in their own organisations, and (3) the consequences of these factors not being present. The interviews lasted around one hour and were tape recorded before being transcribed (Krippendorf 1980). Following Jankowicz (2000), content analysis was used to explore the data and develop a coding frame. This analysis was carried out using the computer programme QSR N6. The resulting coding frame was used to compare respondents views with the critical antecedents emerging from the literature review. New codes were added for areas of non-correspondence.

THE FINDINGS
Table 2 compares respondents views with the five categories of critical antecedents identified in the review of the literature. The table shows the number of respondents who mentioned these antecedents (indicative of response breadth) and the number of separate points made by each respondent in relation to each antecedent (indicative of response depth). From the findings, four of the five critical antecedents in the literature emerged as highly critical in the context of destination branding.

TABLE 2 Critical antecedents: responses from senior managers

Respondents mentioning 25 25 22 21 3 Frequency of mention 40 25 16 22 4

i. Critical antecedents Stakeholder partnerships Brand leadership Departmental coordination Stakeholder communications Brand culture ii. Additional themes Brand reality Brand architecture

25 19

27 34

Hankinson Managing destination brands

105

Stakeholders partnerships The study found strong support by DMOs for stakeholder partnerships. Selecting, understanding and managing effective stakeholder partnerships was regarded as a critical factor by all 20 organisations in the study. It was also the most in-depth discussed factor. Partnerships extended well beyond key public sector organisations: the LGAs, RDAs and TBs. As many as 200 stakeholders could be linked to the marketing of a destination. However, typically only around 20 of these were likely to be regarded as core partners having a strong influence on product development and brand quality. Stakeholders typically worked in common interest clusters such as the media, hotels and restaurant businesses, the cultural sector, retailers, travel and transport. Consistent with Leitch and Richardson (2003), many of these organisations were managing their own, often well known brands at the same time. Stakeholder organisations provided DMOs with funding, core partners usually contributing more than others, for example, organisations like local airports could provide as much as 25% of city TB funding. As one respondent commented:
Our job is to bring together the public and private sector stakeholders in tourism and to galvanise them, motivate them, join up the thinking and resources, bring in new resources and make a difference through raising the brand quality and product development, marketing and proling.

(Director of Marketing, Regional TB) However, there was little evidence of longterm formal frameworks within which these funding-based partnerships were organised. Many contributions were based upon a one-year renewable subscription. In contrast, and in support of Knox et al. (2000), the study found evidence of the importance of close informal relationships with senior managers in core partner organisations; as one respondent put it: I need to be able to pick up the phone and say we need to do something about (CEO, city TB). These findings support the findings of a study by Warnaby et al. (2004) into the management of urban retail centres which found evidence of the inter-linking of marketing activities by managers in both the public and private sectors. In line with the recommendation by Leitch and Richardson (2003) for partners to be selected on the basis of their compatibility, city TBs in particular were found to have engaged in a wide process of consultation in order to establish effective partnerships. Such consultation not only included large public and private sector organisations but also community groups as a means of understanding what the city had to offer as a brand. As one respondent commented:
In order to make [the brand] work, it needs to be more democratic, it needs to be more embracing, in order to really make sure that everybodys singing from the right hymnbook.

(Marketing Director, City Marketing Partnership) As regards managing stakeholders, one of the key issues for DMOs was the need to bring together senior management from stakeholder organisations to develop and agree a destination marketing plan. A broadly based buy-in was seen as essential in order to establish a clear understanding of the essence of the brand and to agree a programme of activities which would add value across the wide spectrum of

106

JMM

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 25

stakeholders involved. Demonstrating potential increases in business activity was particularly important in this regard and was often associated with subscription renewal and therefore short-term levels of commitment. Brand leadership Senior managers in all DMOs interviewed stressed the important role played by senior management in providing focus and ensuring that the strategy could be delivered. In support of the need for visionary leadership suggested by Macrae and Uncles (1997) and inline with the traditional role of brand managers (Low and Fullerton 1994), effective senior managers in DMOs were described as needing strong personalities and to be brand champions, innovative, strong-minded, challenging and energising. CEOs and senior management also had to have very strong influencing skills and commitment. They were required to be catalysts and able to form strong external relationships with other leaders in stakeholder organisations in order to build commitment:
being able to pick up the phone and say to the senior decision-makers you need to know about or to do something and then doors start opening, things start to happen.

(CEO, city TB) However, there was less evidence of CEOs playing a strong role in building internal organisational commitment. Despite evidence that CEOs frequently acted as rolemodels in line with Burmann and Zeplin (2005), commitment to the destination brand in many DMOs was expected to cascade down the organisation rather than permeate across it. This finding contrasts with the conclusion by Simoes and Dibb (2001) and Balmer (2001) that the values and beliefs of corporate brands should be reflected in organisation-wide commitment led by the CEO and senior management. A more active role was likely to be found in the larger city TBs. In support of Hatch and Schulz (2003), there was evidence that CEOs in these organisations took a lead role in organisational restructuring; in particular, CEOs were seen as leaders of change in an organisation: providing the dynamic to make things happen (Marketing Director, regional TB). Several respondents however, spoke of staff frustration that leadership was not able to function properly. The potential for frustration reflected the complex organisational arrangements in which destination branding had to take place. In contrast to the development of corporate brands, leaders in DMOs have no line authority over important areas of brand development and delivery which were seen as being controlled by external stakeholders. As one respondent commented:
Its not about the characteristics of the chief executive, its not about individuals, its about the organisational structure.

(Marketing Director, RDA) Departmental coordination The absence of a strong internal leadership role within many DMOs was reflected in the relatively weak coordination between departments. Although DMOs recognised the need for departmental coordination in support of the brand, the depth of commitment to the alignment of business processes in many DMOs fell short of the importance attached to it in the literature (Rubinstein 1996; Urde 1999; Knox and

Hankinson Managing destination brands

107

Bickerton 2003; Tilley 1999). The exceptions once again were the city TBs who were generally found to be more coordinated than LGAs, RDAs and regional TBs. Thus, city TBs reported good communications between heads of departments and directors, both working together on the development of the brand. In contrast, LGAs and RDAs found departmental coordination more difficult. As one respondent said:
We work in silos here and we need better communication. Regular team meetings and communications are difcult with such a complex range of activities. One of my roles is trying to join things up.

(Deputy CEO, regional TB) This problem probably reflects firstly, the functional breadth of the remit which these organisations have. This problem was clearly expressed by one respondent:
When I joined I was in a separate department from people who run events, the seafront and the conference centre. I was in a separate department again from the people who run economic development and investment and the people who run cultural services. But now economic development, culture, the arts, museums, libraries and tourism etc. are all in one place.

(Director of Tourism, LGA) Secondly, the problem probably also reflects the geographical breadth of the remit. Destination branding seemed noticeably more complex at a regional level. Part of the problem with regional branding is the need to find an overarching brand which can be agreed to by individual cities and sub-areas within the region. At least one other study of place branding reports similar findings: Hankinson (2001) identified the absence of departmental coordination as a significant weakness particularly amongst smaller local government organisations. Brand communications In line with the corporate branding literature, organisational stakeholders were seen as critical target groups for marketing communications (Hatch and Schulz 2003). Consistent with Ind (1997), DMOs were found to use a wide variety of communication interfaces to reach stakeholders. Service deliverers and funding organisations were identified as particularly high priority. Communications were largely face to face and activity-based. In support of Ind (1997), several respondents spoke about the need for workshops, training events and brand handbooks to develop commercial practices consistent with the brand values. As one respondent put it:
We need a toolkit which can be shared with stakeholders and will improve the effectiveness, and to some extent the consistency, of an individual businesss service and reinforce the brand strength.

(Director of Tourism, LGA) Communications targeted at funding organisations focused on partnership events targeted at both senior managers at a strategic level as well as events for operational managers. Communications also focused on opinion formers - organisations who could influence service and infrastructural development such as the LGA and property developers through personal lobbying and working parties. As regards internal brand communications, evidence suggested that this was

108

JMM

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 25

largely confined to city TBs whose main remit was marketing. The need to establish an internal brand identity (Urde 2003) was expressed by one respondents as a need for everyone involved in the delivery of the brand to live the brand (CEO, city TB) and by another respondent as the need for
all staff to be custodians of the brand - informed by the brand and the brand values through workshops and the distribution of brand guidelines.

(Marketing Director, City TB) Brand culture Only a few respondents mentioned the importance of organisational culture as a determinant of successful destination branding. Belief in the critical role played by organisational culture was largely evidenced by the acknowledged support for the internal brand within city TBs. This may be explained in part by the narrower focus which TBs have in contrast to other types of DMO. LGAs, for example, provide a wide range of public services in addition to the promotion of tourism. Thus, one respondent remarked:
there is a dilemma because most of the senior ofcers and indeed elected members time and effort is focused on fullling the multiple needs of residents who dont see the positive attributes of tourism as much as they see the negative attributes.

(Director of Tourism, LGA) Similarly, RDAs are responsible for economic development across a wide range of industries of which tourism is only one. Therefore, establishing the internal brand (Ind 1997) may be more difficult in DMOs with multiple service responsibilities. This finding is consistent with (Hankinson 2001) who concluded that the organisational complexity which characterises the development of destination brands prevents the establishment of a unified organisational culture. Additional themes In addition to the five critical antecedents identified in the literature, the study identified two other factors regarded as critical to successful destination branding: delivering the brand experience and brand architecture. A large proportion of DMOs interviewed regarded the ability to deliver the brand experience or brand reality (Hankinson 2004, p. 115) through product development of critical importance. Delivering brand reality was identified with the quality of the destinations buildings, infrastructure and support services as well as the collection of retail, leisure and special interest services it offered. Delivering this went beyond the creation and communication of place images which have been extensively discussed in the tourism and the urban planning literatures (for examples see Ward 1998; Ashworth and Voogt 1990) and linked promotion to the brand experience and word of mouth communications. One respondent summarised this as follows:
[branding] starts with preliminary communications and goes right through to experiencing the product and then memorising the experience and relaying it to friends, relatives and colleagues when they get back home and inuences whether they come back again.

(Deputy CEO, regional TB)

Hankinson Managing destination brands

109

The need to transform the negative organically formed images of some destinations through investment in product development (Gunn 1997; Hankinson 2004) was widely recognised by respondents, but particularly those from post-industrial cities. City TBs were able to work on a one-to-one basis with their LGA; in contrast, regions had to work with several LGAs and were therefore less able to form such strong relationships. Another critical issue for many DMOs was how to design the brand architecture and avoid brand conflict. Brand architecture - the number and nature of brands employed and the relationship between each brand (Devlin 2003, p. 1043) - was found to be a particularly relevant concept in the context of destination branding. It was a particularly important issue for DMOs with regional responsibility where conflicts could emerge between the region, its cities and its towns, each protecting its interest in having its own brand. Brand architecture is a key branding issue but in the context of destination brands it becomes a political issue. As one respondent put it:
Its probably more political than anything elsesome areas still want to be very focused on their own branding so its a challenge

(Marketing Director, regional TB) One solution was to adopt an overarching brand for all activities an umbrella brand or branded house strategy (Aaker and Joachimstaler 2000). Another solution to the problem was to use the concept of attack and slipstream brands
a marketing strategy which makes the region an attack brand to encourage people to come to the region and makes lesser known towns slipsteam brands to build awareness

(Deputy CEO, regional TB) In some cases DMOs used a city brand as the attack brand in order to build awareness of the region as the slipstream brand. However, it was clear from the study that many DMOs felt that the attack and slipstream brand strategy could result in brand dilution and confusion.

DISCUSSION
From the literature review there emerged five critical antecedents around which a theory of destination brand management might be based. Analysis of the data from the field interviews, indicated broad agreement about the relevance and importance of all five categories; however, there were differences between the degree to which each was implemented. Implementation was found to be strongest with regard to external branding activities such as the fostering of stakeholder partnerships and building strong communication platforms focusing on funding and service delivery. DMOs are relatively small organisations with very limited financial resources; as a consequence, much of their activities are focused on securing stakeholder support to meet short term financial objectives; CEOs therefore spent a lot of their time with external stakeholders. In contrast, and perhaps in consequence, establishing a brandoriented organisational culture and departmental coordination, although agreed to be desirable, seemed difficult to achieve. Effective internal leadership appeared to be constrained by the complex inter-organisational structures in which DMOs have to work. The notable exceptions were the city TBs, which appeared more able to

110

JMM

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 25

engineer organisational change and inter-departmental coordination; consequently, they were more successful at building brand-oriented cultures and establishing internal branding processes. Two additional themes emerged from the field interviews: brand reality and brand architecture. These appeared to reflect two distinctive problem areas for DMO, firstly, the difficulties associated with product development and the need to match the brand experience with the brand promise and secondly, the difficulties associated with branding across regions. Analysis of the field interviews indicated that there is overlap between some of the antecedents identified in the literature review. This is particularly apparent between brand culture, internal brand communications and departmental coodination, all three of which form part of the internal transformation potentially necessary to support the external brand. This overlap will need to be clarified as part of construct formation and measurement. Overall, city TBs seemed better placed to manage destination branding more effectively. They were able to focus on one brand and, although having to work with many external stakeholders, needed only to work with one LGA. Investment in infrastructure and product improvement was therefore a shared objective between the two organisations. In contrast, regional TBs had wider geographical responsibility and worked with several LGAs resulting in compromise and slower implementation. Regions also seemed to experience more political conflict than cities and, as a consequence both regional TBs and RDAs were often required to develop a more complex brand architecture in order to accommodate the political objectives of the leading towns and cities in their designated region. This conflict followed by compromise contrasts with the views of Leitch and Richardson (2003) that partner organisations should be selected on the basis of equal power and mutually shared objectives. Such variations in the working arrangements between DMOs suggest that institutional variations such as these need to be incorporated as intervening factors in any future model of destination brand management.

MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS
This research has direct managerial implications. First, the study clearly identifies seven critical areas of activity in which DMOs must engage in order to develop effective destination brand strategies. Second, the study identifies situational factors which might impede the development and success of those strategies and suggests that different strategies may be required in different institutional environments. Overall, the research provides DMOs with a framework in which to develop their destination brand strategies. Seven critical activities The study provides specific guidance about the activities which must form the focus for destination brand strategy. The findings suggest that DMOs must seek to work with relatively small, but broadly based groups of compatible, committed stakeholders within formal frameworks. DMOs must also seek to establish long term partnerships rather than one-year, subscription-based agreements. This process must be led by CEOs and senior management. CEOs in particular, must also work more effectively to build understanding and commitment to the destination brand

Hankinson Managing destination brands

111

across their own organisations. This process may involve changes in the management structure of the organisation in order to obtain the coordination and commitment between departments necessary to support the brands development. However, the balance between departments needs to be handled carefully; although marketing and other outward-facing departments typically will have a larger role to play, other departments must not be seen to have secondary status (Kohli and Jaworski 1990). CEOs also need to encourage similar understanding and commitment in partner organisations even though such activities are not within their managerial control. Brand communications have a key role to play in these activities: A toolkit of brand manuals, training events and other activity-based workshops can form the basis of internal destination brand development within both the DMO and its partner organisations. To be successful, destination brands must go beyond the communication of an image and make the brand promise a reality. This means that it is imperative to build strong partnerships with organisations involved in investment in the destinations physical environment buildings and infrastructure; these can be in both the private and public sectors. The inuence of institutional environments The study suggests that more focused destination brands, such as cities, are more likely to be successful in comparison to more broadly based brands such as regions. This appears to be largely a result of differing institutional environments. Therefore, branding strategies and managerial styles may need to be tailored to these different environments. For example, destination brands which stretch across both urban and rural spaces, may require a more complex brand architecture. The use of attack and slipstream brands can provide a convenient communications platform for incorporating regional diversity provided it is based on sound branding principles and not political convenience. Also, regional DMOs may require greater managerial flexibility and cooperation in order to build long term investment partnerships which ensure brand reality across the wide number of brand experience points for which they are responsible.

CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS

The aim of this study was to lay the foundations for the further development of a theory of destination brand management. The need for this was predicated on the widely held view that destination marketing in general requires a special type of marketing. Until recently, brand management theory has been based upon the consumer goods industries in the private sector; therefore, the extent to which it could be applied to other sectors has been questioned. The application of such theory has been particularly problematic in the context of destination branding which is a predominantly a public sector activity associated with a very different type of product made up of a collection of public and private sector services. The starting point for this study was to set this problem in the context of the more recent developments in theory particularly associated with corporate and services branding. These areas in the literature are regarded as sharing some common characteristics with destination branding, a view which was confirmed by the results of this study. The five areas of similarity identified from the literature and

112

JMM

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 25

designated as critical antecedents of successful destination branding were all found to be relevant to DMOs branding activities. From this we might conclude that the more recently emerging areas of brand management theory do have something to contribute to the practice of destination branding and that a special theory may not be necessary. However, variations in the extent to which the critical antecedents were found to be implemented, for example, the more widespread implementation of external branding activities compared to internal branding activities, suggests that other mediating factors may be at work. Some of the problems of implementation may reflect fundamental institutional differences between mainstream branding in the private sector and destination branding in the public sector. Such differences include tighter resources and the lack of direct management control over product delivery, both of which can cause DMOs to prioritise external activities over internal activities. Such problems also arise as a result of the need for DMOs to work with other public sector organisations with different overall objectives. LAs for example, are statutorily required to deliver certain services, RDAs are responsible for regional economic development and a TBs overall responsibility is to support regional tourism development. Such an absence of common goals may limit the ability to develop a consistent internal brand both within and across these organisations. Finally, DMOs are ultimately responsible to elected representatives whose support for the long term investment required to build a successful destination brand may ebb and flow with the tide of opinion. Such institutional factors rarely affect private sector branding activities. Thus, the overall conclusion from this research must be that, while recent developments in the theory of brand management have much to contribute to destination branding theory, the nature, structure and relationships between the stakeholder organisations involved, will continue to require the contextualisation of this theory. However, this conclusion must be placed within the limitations of the research undertaken. In particular, for reasons of time and resources, this study has been limited to 25 field interviews with 20 DMOs. This has inevitably prevented a fuller explanation of some of the questions raised by the results, particularly with regard to the mediating influences of the institutional environment in which destination branding takes place. Nevertheless, the study has begun to lay the foundations for the systematic development of a theory of destination brand management. There is however, more exploratory work to be done before an integrated model of destination brand management can be posited. Work will then be required to develop suitable measures of the factors identified based upon a clear delineation of each construct and the elimination of the overlaps such as those identified in this research.

REFERENCES
Aaker, D. and Joachimstaler, E. (2000), Brand Leadership, New York: The Free Press. Ashworth, G. (1993), Marketing of Places: What are We Doing? In: Ave, G. and Corsico, F., (eds)., Urban Marketing in Europe, Turin: Turina Incontra. Ashworth, G. and Voogt, H. (1990), Selling the City, London: Belhaven. Ashworth, G. and Voogt, H. (1994), Marketing & Place Promotion. In: Gold, J. and Ward, S., (eds.), Place Promotion, the Use of Publicity & Marketing to Sell Towns & Regions, Chichester: John Wiley. Balmer, J. (2001), Corporate Identity, Corporate Branding and Corporate Marketing. Seeing

Hankinson Managing destination brands

113

through the Fog, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35, No. 3/4, pp. 248-291. Balmer, J. and Soenen, G. (1999), The Acid TestTM of Corporate Identity Management, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15, No. 1-3, pp. 69-92. Barwise, P and Robertson, R. (1992), Brand Portfolios, European Management Journal, Vol. . 10, No. 3, pp. 227-285. Bass, B. (1990), From Transactional to Transformational Leadership: Learning to Share Vision, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 18, Winter, pp. 19-31. Burmann, C. and Zeplin, S. (2005), Building Brand Commitment: A Behavioural Approach to Internal Brand Management, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 279300. Churchill, G. (1979), A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16 (February), pp. 64-73. Crockett, S. and Wood, L. (1999), Brand Western Australia: A Totally Integrated Approach to Destination Branding, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 276-289. de Chernatony, L. and Segal-Horn, S. (2001), Building on Services Characteristics to Develop Successful Services Brands, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 17, No 7-8, pp. 645670. Deng, S. and Dart, J. (1994), Measuring Market Orientation: A Multi-factor, Multi-term Approach, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 10, No. 8, pp. 725-742. Deshpande, R. (1983), Paradigms Lost: On Theory and Method in Research in Marketing, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47, Fall, pp. 101-110. Devlin, J. (2003), Brand Architecture in Services: The example of Retail Financial Services, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 19, No. 9-10, pp. 1043-1066. George, M., Freeling, A. and Court, D. (1994), Reinventing the Marketing Organisation, The McKinsey Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 43062. Goodman, M. (2006), Corporate Communication Practice and Pedagogy at the Dawn of the Milenium, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 196-213. Greyser, S., Balmer, J. and Urde, M. (2006), The Monarchy as a Corporate Brand, Some corporate Communications Dimensions, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40, No. 7/8, pp. 902-908. Gunn, C. (1997), Vacationscape: developing Tourist Areas, 2nd edition, Washington DC: Taylor and Francis. Hall, D. (1999), Destination Branding, Niche Marketing and National Image Projections in Central and Eastern Europe, Journal of Vacation Management, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 227-237. Hankinson, G. (2001), Location Branding: A Study of the Branding Practices of 12 English Cities, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 127-142. Hankinson, G. (2004), Relational Network Brands: Towards a Conceptual Model of Place Brands, Journal of Vacation Marketing, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 109-121. Hankinson, G. (2006), The Management of Destination Brands: Five Guiding Principles based on Recent Developments in Corporate Branding Theory, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 240-254. Hankinson G. and Cowking P (1997), Branding in Practice: The Profile and Role of Brand . Managers in the UK, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 239-264. Hankinson, P (2004), The Internal Brand In Leading UK Charities, Journal of Product and . Brand Management, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 84-93. Hatch, M. J. and Schulz, M. (2003), Bringing the Corporation into Corporate Branding, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37, No. 7/8, pp. 1041-1064. Huxham, C. and Vangen, S. (2000), What Makes Partnerships Work?. In: Osborne, S., ed., Public-Private Partnerships: Theory and Practice an International Perspective, London: Routledge. Ind, N. (1997), The Corporate Brand, London: MacMillan. Ind, N. (1998), An Integrated Approach to Corporate Branding, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 5, No. 5, pp. 323-329.

114

JMM

Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 25

Jankowicz, A. D. (2000), Business Research Projects, 3rd edition., London: Thompson Learning. Karavatzis, M. (2004), From City Marketing to City Branding: Towards a Theoretical Framework for Developing City Brands, Journal of Place Branding, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 58-73. Karavatzis, M. and Ashworth, G. (2005), City Branding: An Effective Assertion of Identity or a Transitory Marketing Trick?, Tijdschrift voor Economische en Social Geografie, Vol. 96, No. 5, pp. 506-514. Kanter, R. (1989), Becoming PALs: Pooling, Allying, and Linking Across Companies, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. III, No. 3, pp. 183-193. Kelly, K. (1998), New Rules for the New Economy, London: Fourth Estate. King, S. (1984), Developing New Brands, London: JWT. Knox, S. Maklan, S. and Thompson, K. (2000), Building the Unique Organisation Value Proposition, The Expressive Organisation, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Knox, S. and Bickerton, D. (2003), The Six Conventions of Corporate Branding, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37, No. 7/8, pp. 998-1016. Kohli, A. and Jaworski, B. (1990), Market Orientation: The Construct, Research Propositions, and Managerial Implications, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 (April), pp. 1-18. Kohli, A., Jaworski, B. and Kumar, A.(1993), MARKOR: A Measure of Market Orientation, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 30 (November), pp. 467-77. Kotler, P Asplund, C., Rein, I. and Haider, D (1999), Marketing Places - Europe, Harlow: ., Pearson Education. Krippendorff, K. (1980), Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology, Beverly Hills: Sage. Lane Keller, K. (1999), Brand Mantras: Rationale, Criteria and Examples, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15, No. 1-3, pp. 43-52. Lane Keller, K.L. (2000), Building and Managing Corporate Brand Equity. In: Schultz, M., Hatch, M. J. and Larsen, M. (eds.), The Expressive Organisation. Linking Identity, Reputation, and the Corporate Brand, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Leitch, S. and Richardson, N. (2003), Corporate branding in the new economy, Journal of European Marketing, Vol. 37, No. 7/8, pp. 1066-1079. Leocini, P (2002), Make Your Values Mean Something, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 40, . No. 7, pp. 113-117. Low, G, and Fullerton, R. (1994), Brands, Brand Management, and the Brand Manager System: A Critical-Historical Evaluation, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31 (May), pp. 173-190. McDonald, H., de Chernatony, L., and Harris, F. (2001), Corporate Marketing and Services Brands, Moving Beyond the Fast-moving Consumer Goods Model, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35, No. 3/4, pp. 335-352. McQuaid, R, (220), The Theory of Partnership. Why have Partnerships?. In: Osborne, S (ed.), Public-private Partnerships: Theory and Practice, an International Perspective Macrae, C. and Uncles, M. (1997), Rethinking Brand Management: The Role of Brand Chartering, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 64-77. Miles, M.B. and Huberman, MA. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis, Thousand Island Oaks: Sage. Mitchell, C. (2002), Selling the Brand Inside, Harvard Business Review, January, pp. 99105. Murphy, B., Maguiness, P Pescott, C., Wislang, S., Ma, J and Wang, R. (2005), Stakeholder , Perceptions Presage Holistic Stakeholder Relationship Marketing Performance, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39, No. 9/10, pp. 1049-1059. Rainisto, S. (2003), Success Factors of Place Marketing: A Study of Place Marketing Practices in Northern Europe and the United States, PhD thesis, Helsinki University of Technology, Institute of Strategy and International Business. Rubenstein, H. (1996), Brand First Management, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 269-280.

Hankinson Managing destination brands

115

Schein, E. (1992), Organisational Culture and Leadership, 2nd edition, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Sherman, S. (1992), Are Strategic Alliances Working?, Fortune, September, pp. 77-78. Simoes, C. and Dibb, S. (2001), Rethinking the Brand Concept: New Brand Orientation, Corporate Communications, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 340-355. Tilley, C. (1999), Built-in Branding: How to Engineer a Leadership Brand, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15, No. 103, pp. 181-191. Trueman, M., Klemm, M. and Giroud, A. (2004), Can a City Communicate? Bradford as a Corporate Brand, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 317-330. Urde, M. (1994), Brand Orientation A Strategy for Survival, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 18-31. Urde, M. (1999), Brand Orientation: A Mindset for Building Brands into Strategic Resources, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15, No. 1-3, pp. 117-133. Urde, M. (2003), Core Value-based Corporate Brand Building, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37, No. 7/8, pp. 1017-1040. Vallaster, C. and de Chernatony, L. (2006), Internal Brand Building and Structuration: The Role of Leadership, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40, No. 7/8, pp. 761-784. Van den Berg, L. and Braun, E. (1999), Urban Competitiveness, Marketing and the Need for Organising Capacity, Urban Studies, Vol. 36, No. 5-6, pp. 987-999. Ward, S. (1998), Selling Places: The Marketing of Towns and Cities, 1850-2000, London: Routledge. Warnaby, G., Bennison, D., Davies, B. and Hughes, H. (2002), Marketing UK Towns and Cities as Shopping Destinations, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 18, No. 9-10, pp. 877-904. Warnaby, G., Bennison, D., Davies, B. and Hughes, H. (2004), People and Partnerships: Marketing Urban Retailing, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 32, No. 11, pp. 545-556. Zineldin, M. 2004), Co-optition: The Organisation of the Future, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 22, No. 7, pp. 780-789.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR AND CORRESPONDENCE

Graham Hankinson lectures in the Business School and researches in the Institute for Culture, Tourism and Development at London Metropolitan University. His research interests are focused on the marketing and branding of places as tourism destinations. Dr Graham Hankinson, London Metropolitan University Business Schoool, London Metropolitan University, 277-281 Holloway Road, London, N7 8HN, UK. T +44 (0)20 7133 3924 F +44 (0)20 7133 3899 E g.hankinson@londonmet.ac.uk